Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Human-powered Helicopter Fails to Lift Off

Posted by michael on from the we've-got-hiiiiiiiiiiigh-hopes dept.

Peter writes "The Human-powered helicopter didn't even get off the ground. A team of University of British Columbia engineering students tried to win the $20,000 US prize offered by the American Helicopter Society. Three metres off the ground and hover for a minute was the challenge. But before the rotors were able to produce enough buoyant force they hit each other. More details: Vancouver Sun."

13 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Look on the bright side... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...not getting off the ground makes it difficult to crash.

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  2. I'm all in favor of alternative energy sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But killing humans and using them for fuel? That's horrible!

  3. No pretesting? by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How could they not know that this was going to fail so completely? The article did not state whether or not they had done any test flights before the public demonstration. If they did, and it worked, than maybe it was just the temp/humidity as stated. It was interesting to read:

    "My feeling at the moment is that the machine is actually quite unstable," said Mike Georgallis, leader of the team that has been working on the project for six years.

    Maybe they did know that this wasn't likely to be a success.

    Cheers,

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:No pretesting? by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 5, Informative
      These were engineering students, and yet no one thought to do the basic physics calculations (like: what is the power required and can a human generate it) before building a prototype. I thought that was what engineering is all about.
      I know it's kind of expected that no one on Slashdot reads the references before pontificating, but this (click on "choosing the final Thunderbird design") seems to indicate they did do the calculations and they did expect a human could produce enough power.

      It appears they were in error, or that there were other things (e.g., stability) that interfered. That's no reason to expect they won't improve the design and get it working, though. I think it's a pretty cool challenge and certainly beats the usual student project of "design another <known thing>".

    2. Re:No pretesting? by Dave_B93 · · Score: 5, Informative
      I was at the attempted liftoff.

      This was the first time that they had the whole thing assembled, and in some ways you could tell. I think some simple resistance based testing would've shown that chain structure was too fragile to propel the wings properly ( either that or the chain was somehow damaged in the first crash where the blades ran into each other.)

      It was also kind of obvious they had never practiced how they were going to start the thing. they had 4 volunteers, (one on the end of each rotor) running around helping the rotors get started. One of the guys on the lower blades was pulling too far down causing the other guy to let go. That is why the blades collided the first time, forget all this not enough lift on the top blade, it was human error.

      The second attempt (after repairing the damage caused by the first attempt). looked more promising, the blades actually seemed to be moving quite well, and in fact the upper blade had started producing enough lift that it looked like there was no danger of hitting the bottom one ( even with human error) , but then they ran into the problems with the chain. Imagine the sound that your bike makes when you're in the wrong gear going up a hill. The skipping noises etc... it sounded just like that.

      I left after the third attempt when the chain just came off. it didnt' look like they were going to get anywhere, and I'd already been there for about 2 hours.

      As for why they'd never practiced with the thing beforehand, I speculate that it is because they didn't know if the thing would survive. If somehow it had gotten off the ground, only to crash after 30 seconds, they would've beaten the record, but wouldn't be able to recreate it. This way they would atleast have witnesses...

  4. They hit eachother!? by TeVi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Peter writes "The Human-powered helicopter didn't even get off the ground. A team of University of British Columbia engineering students tried to win the $20,000 US prize offered by the American Helicopter Society. Three metres off the ground and hover for a minute was the challenge. But before the rotors were able to produce enough buoyant force they hit each other.

    I assume 'they' refers to the rotors, not the team...

  5. Re:Point? by dykofone · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ah yes, "The Point," what is it and why should anything be attempted if "The Point" isn't clearly defined in a two-page, three-color brochure accompanying a 10 slide powerpoint presentation (with plenty of cute sounds and clip-art) and of course complimentary box lunches.

    BECAUSE it's cool, because I look at it and go "damn, that would be quite the engineering accomplishment right there," because college isn't all about inventing things that need to be invented, it's about expanding the mind to accomplish abstract ideas. Think of every lab that students do in their science courses: what's the point of those? It's old technology, it's certainly been done before. Why aren't freshman chemistry students working on cold fusion or something else the military will jump all over?

    Besides, this is impressive science, since the human legs can put out a sustainable 100W, it's the attempt to built something light enough to get off with minimal power. And the $175,000 they've spent over 6 years to educate students and built a prototype is cheap in the education world.

  6. Sooner or later someone will do it. by runner_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity. For many years the thought of sustainable human powered flight of any kind was considered an impossibility but in 1979 we saw the Gossamer Albatross cross the English Channel. I believe that sooner or later someone will manage to meet the requirements to win this American Helicopter Society prize. However without a doubt even then human powered flight will be just an interesting curiosity and not of any practical use.

  7. That should read average human body... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The human body constantly generates an approximate 200 watts

    You mean the average human...

    Lance Armstrong can sustain power outputs around 600 watts, and several people (most competative amatuer cyclists) are capable of a ~1 minute burst of over 1250 watts.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  8. The art of flying... by bsd4me · · Score: 5, Funny

    The art of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

    --

    (S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))

    1. Re:The art of flying... by jcostantino · · Score: 5, Funny

      Informative? That should be moderated Funny.

      --
      Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
  9. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Attention passengers, we're preparing for take off. Please put your seats in the upright positions and your feet on the pedals. If you notice a fellow passenger failing to pedal, please quietly alert a stewardess that you suspect terrorism.

  10. blades not stiff enough? by mks180 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "the atmospheric conditions caused a dangerous imbalance in the craft's two rotor blades: the bottom blade was producing lift while the top blade wasn't." Sounds to me that what really happened was that they tried to save weight and didn't make the upper blades, which are longer, torsionally stiff enough. This caused a phenomenon similar to aileron reversal: as you produce lift, you produce a nose-down pitching moment which can elastically twist the blades, and may be capable of reversing the direction of lift. If this is what happened, then I can easily see the upper blades flapping down into the lower set of blades.

    This aileron reversal effect is actually a fairly hot research topic in the rotorcraft community. People are trying to exploite it by using embeded actuators to control trailing edge flaps to create a pitching moment to twist rotor blades and thereby eliminate the swashplate for primary control.